bcn_get_ley_historica

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the historical-dating semantics and that the date must be a specific historical date, but says nothing about what happens for dates outside a law's validity range or about return shape. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that carries the action, the resource, the date-format constraint, and the purpose with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only BCN lookup with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient; the caller knows what it retrieves and why. It could be stronger by noting the sibling for current text and edge behavior on invalid/out-of-range dates, but nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents fecha (YYYY-MM-DD with example), numero, and articulo. The description restates only the date format already in the schema and adds no meaning for numero or articulo. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Consulta), resource (el texto de una ley chilena), and a precise scope constraint (vigente en una fecha histórica específica en la BCN). This clearly separates it from bcn_get_ley (current text) since it emphasizes historical-date validity, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The clause 'para control de derecho intertemporal' implies the intended use case (checking which version of a law applied on a past date), which is useful context. However, it states no alternatives or exclusions – an agent gets no explicit guidance to prefer bcn_get_ley when the current text is wanted, or bcn_get_codigo_historico for codes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.